While Apple's announcements at the National Association of Broadcasters conference on Sunday signal a continued push into the pro video space, they aren't seen as incremental to the firm's near-term growth, according one Wall Street analyst.

During a special presentation at the Venetian Ballroom in Las Vegas, the Cupertino-based Mac maker introduced video editing professionals to a new version of its Final Cut Studio video production suite. Also making its debut to a warm reception was a asset management and workflowautomation tool dubbed Final Cut Server.

"Apple has consistently been criticized for not having a way for pro editors to tackle high end projects, given the lack of tools allowing editors to work collaboratively and manage the workflow of big projects," said PiperJaffray analyst Gene Munster, whose team attended the presentation. "We believe the release of Final Cut Server is a sign that Apple is trying to push Final Cut into higher end projects. The success of this tool will likely be a critical factor in whether Apple is able to gain market share at the pro level."

Munster said the next step for Apple could arrive in the form of a more sophisticated editing offering such as a "Final Cut Extreme" edition. In a note to clients on Monday, he noted that a higher end version of Final Cut has been rumored for 2 years, but it failed to materialize again this year.

"Apple's announcements at NAB yesterday are not big news compared to the company's other product announcements this year, and we do not expect that these announcements will impact numbers in the near term," the analyst explained. "That said, Apple has consistently signaled that it is making a bigger push into the pro editing market, with new products and an expanding presence at the NAB tradeshow."

Overall, Munster said the there are two central themes at this year's NAB show -- the largest show for broadcast and post production firms -- which are the move to HD video and growth in Web-based video.

"We believe the general health of the broadcast and post production industry remains strong, and we would focus on companies positioned to capture business from one of these two major industry trends," he wrote.

Munster maintained an "Outperform" rating and $123 price target on shares of Apple.

I do agree with what he's saying. While I already commented in the first thread, that Server is a BIG product for Apple, and encroaches on Avids territory as never before, FCS, even with these new features, isn't directly competitive with Avids high end offerings.

With that said, they are a good advance, and should lessen the barrier that has been there to FCS's acceptance.

I also agree that these products aren't going to add much to Apple's growth.

Several years ago it would have been different, but now, Apple has grown beyond the point where any pro products can sell enough to add significantly to the sales numbers. At most, we are talking $200 million a year. To a company with sales this year at a estimated $24 to $26 billion, that's a drop in the bucket.

I hope it doesn't have any impact. Seeing a major impact on revenue/profit because of what most would consider "niche" products would probably cause more people to consider Apple's userbase consists mostly of graphic artists and video users, which, as I just said, is a niche market (it might take in money, but its still a niche). If vendors start thinking like that, you might have to start kissing goodbye to some of the non-video software/hardware that people were thinking of bringing to the platform.

That's the biggest impact I think. FCP is priced just right to be within reach of anyone wanting to shoot their own film and have it look like a big production without the big budget.

I am extremely curious about Compressor 3 though. It advertises SD to HD upconversion and reverse telecine of 29.97 material using optical flow technology. I know the "junk-in junk-out" analogy, but I wonder how that can help footage taken from any 3-chip camera? Can you shoot in true 24p with anything now?

In this case, Munster doesn't know diddly. FCP is already at the top of it's game, and the new Final Cut Studio is fantastic. I was extremely impressed with the new upgrades and I'll be ordering it this week!

In this case, Munster doesn't know diddly. FCP is already at the top of it's game, and the new Final Cut Studio is fantastic. I was extremely impressed with the new upgrades and I'll be ordering it this week!

I've been using the programs since ver 1, and I do agree with him.

I'm surprised that you don't. Do you really think that FCS competes on the level of Avids high end products? Not even close.

I'm surprised that you don't. Do you really think that FCS competes on the level of Avids high end products? Not even close.

I haven't had the pleasure (or, as I've heard, challenge) working with an Avid, I have worked with previous versions of FCP and Express for video work. My main areas of 'pseudo-expertise' are in photo-retouching, illustration and 3D. You have the advantage in this area, Mel.

"We believe the release of Final Cut Server is a sign that Apple is trying to push Final Cut into higher end projects. The success of this tool will likely be a critical factor in whether Apple is able to gain market share at the pro level."

NO!? Really?
Realistically over the next few years they will gain marketshare automatically anyways, so many people are graduating everyday from places and because of the cost, it's final cut they've learned and owned.

Avid's fallen out of touch with the lower end market, what they don't realize is as the lower end's careers take off they become the higher end, and it ain't avid they know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.Date the ban will be lifted:...

The impact is much greater than just the software sales numbers alone. Software drives hardware sales.

I think you both are close, but these tools allow Apple to have more content developed for iTV/iTS. There is a format war going on and this is a way for apple to attract more content makers to and keep current users in the Apple ecosystem. These sales will be many fold, with initial software sales and hardware sales, as well as the more lucrative, content sales while maintaining/growing its market dominance of apple as a downloaded media source.

While Final Cut Studio and Final Cut Server will be well recieved by the industry it will produce only a drop in the bucket profit-wise. Apple will definitely sell many more XServes and XServe RAIDs as a result of this however this isn't where the money is really at. Apple needs a consumer and Prosumer RAID.

I think you both are close, but these tools allow Apple to have more content developed for iTV/iTS. There is a format war going on and this is a way for apple to attract more content makers to and keep current users in the Apple ecosystem. These sales will be many fold, with initial software sales and hardware sales, as well as the more lucrative, content sales while maintaining/growing its market dominance of apple as a downloaded media source.

I don't see this as having much of an effect on media available for the Mac platform. What I did find to be interesting was the statement that Compressor 3 was used by APPLE to compress material for the iTunes Store. Many have been assuming that the content providers themselves do the compression.

While Final Cut Studio and Final Cut Server will be well recieved by the industry it will produce only a drop in the bucket profit-wise. Apple will definitely sell many more XServes and XServe RAIDs as a result of this however this isn't where the money is really at. Apple needs a consumer and Prosumer RAID.

I'm willing to bet that Apples pro sales to the pro community, as opposed to Apple's pro sales to the non pro community, is not much more than 10% of the 2007 sales numbers.

It's not that is doesn't matter, it does, but it's become much smaller in relation to what the overall company does.

What it does do, is give Apple mindshare within the business and government community.

I hope it doesn't have any impact. Seeing a major impact on revenue/profit because of what most would consider "niche" products would probably cause more people to consider Apple's userbase consists mostly of graphic artists and video users, which, as I just said, is a niche market (it might take in money, but its still a niche). If vendors start thinking like that, you might have to start kissing goodbye to some of the non-video software/hardware that people were thinking of bringing to the platform.

Well said. If Apple makes only 2% - 5% of its total revenue stream from these products it's a solid sign that the company's overall growth is healthy.

If it were 10% or greater than people could talk about how vital this product suite is to Apple's existence.

I don't see this as having much of an effect on media available for the Mac platform. What I did find to be interesting was the statement that Compressor 3 was used by APPLE to compress material for the iTunes Store. Many have been assuming that the content providers themselves do the compression.

Then you don't see that streaming media to iTV and iPhone as a big market. All of the cellular phone companies do. Who should I believe?

Then you don't see that streaming media to iTV and iPhone as a big market. All of the cellular phone companies do. Who should I believe?

I didn't say that. I said that THESE products won't lead to more content for Apple's devices. There are enough tools to do that now. this will lead to the purchase of Apple tools to do it, because it might be easier, that's all.

I think you both are close, but these tools allow Apple to have more content developed for iTV/iTS. There is a format war going on and this is a way for apple to attract more content makers to and keep current users in the Apple ecosystem. These sales will be many fold, with initial software sales and hardware sales, as well as the more lucrative, content sales while maintaining/growing its market dominance of apple as a downloaded media source.

Sorry, but there's nothing related to the format that original source content is in to getting the finished product onto the iTMS. Keep in mind that content owners/creators aren't going to create their content with just one medium/distribution channel in mind. The final product will be in a format that can be converted or compressed down to whatever format (Apple video, WMV, Mpg, etc) that they need to get it into as many possible sales channels.

And its interesting reading different schools of thoughts on upgrades. Reading the Adobe CS3 board, its all "I'm waiting until the bugs are worked out and reviews come in...". For FCP its "Man, I can't wait to get this!" Aren't video pros as concerned with upgrade issues as the graphics folks?

And its interesting reading different schools of thoughts on upgrades. Reading the Adobe CS3 board, its all "I'm waiting until the bugs are worked out and reviews come in...". For FCP its "Man, I can't wait to get this!" Aren't video pros as concerned with upgrade issues as the graphics folks?

I think Apple's track record for FCP upgrades are better that Adobe's with a few exceptions of course. I 've never had any issues upgrading and I'v done so across G4's G5's and the new MP's...

I didn't say that. I said that THESE products won't lead to more content for Apple's devices. There are enough tools to do that now. this will lead to the purchase of Apple tools to do it, because it might be easier, that's all.

Explain how tools aimed at TV and Movie Production isn't going to lead to content for Apple's devices? Then what the devil are these for?

Additionally, think why apple should continue a product that only contributes to 1-2% of total sales. There is almost no profit. These tools are to get street cred from the Video industry.

Sorry, but there's nothing related to the format that original source content is in to getting the finished product onto the iTMS. Keep in mind that content owners/creators aren't going to create their content with just one medium/distribution channel in mind. The final product will be in a format that can be converted or compressed down to whatever format (Apple video, WMV, Mpg, etc) that they need to get it into as many possible sales channels.

And its interesting reading different schools of thoughts on upgrades. Reading the Adobe CS3 board, its all "I'm waiting until the bugs are worked out and reviews come in...". For FCP its "Man, I can't wait to get this!" Aren't video pros as concerned with upgrade issues as the graphics folks?

Do you think that Avid is going to actively promote the iTV/iTMS formatting? NO! If apple wants people to contribute to their distribution system, Apple needs to give them tools that work for what THE CONTENT MAKERS want AND make it easy for that content to be converted into the a format for APPLE to distribute.

Do you think that Avid is going to actively promote the iTV/iTMS formatting?

I can agree in that Apple makes it convenient to create content in these formats. But the formats are nothing special to Apple in of themselves.

Apple has an iPod/AppleTV button to automatically export content. While in other applications you have to manually input the export format for iPod/AppleTV. But you don't need an Apple application to create content for iPod/AppleTV.

No application in a vertical market such as Final Cut Pro is going to have a huge impact when compared to consumer/entertainment application like iPod/iTunes.

I think when discussing impact one must apply the proper context. Within the vertical of audio/video production the new FCP will indeed cause on impact. Will that impact generate billions in new revenue. No. But the impact will be there nontheless. I know of plenty of people who bought Macs just to run Final Cut Pro. While overall they are a small fish in a big pond I'd rather have them aboard than have Macs being a wasteland of video apps.

He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.- SolipsismX

"Apple has consistently been criticized for not having a way for pro editors to tackle high end projects, given the lack of tools allowing editors to work collaboratively and manage the workflow of big projects,"

Is this a technology that we may see released for cross platform collaboration with iLife/iWork later this year?

I'm wondering about workflow between iPhones and home Mac and work PC with integrated scheduling etc? and what about managing your raw photos and movies across your network in new and useful ways?

I really don't know if the background technologies developed for Final Cut Server have a cross over. Anyone know?

Greg

This product has been around a while and had a good reputation. Search for Proximity Artbox and you'll find out more about it's capabilities. Apple made a good choice to acquire them because it keeps Final Cut Pro as a choice for Broadcast Pro and those who need to work in teams. I only see the product getting better once Apple can put more custom work into it ..the same goes for Color.

As for iWork/iLife collaboration look no further than iChat Theater for that task. While it may not be as sexy as Final Cut Server iChat Theater is a great start for application collaboration IMO.

He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.- SolipsismX

Thanks for the info, I didn't realise Apple had bought that. Makes me wonder why podcasts like twim were hoping for media management as a new feature but not sure, if/when it was already known that Apple had bought this!

Quote:

Originally Posted by hmurchison

As for iWork/iLife collaboration look no further than iChat Theater for that task. While it may not be as sexy as Final Cut Server iChat Theater is a great start for application collaboration IMO.

While I think that iChat Theatre will allow us to show other people what we're looking at on our screen (whatever that may be), it's not the same as implementing a workflow, allocating tasks etc.

Managing workflow (& other non-realtime events) as well as managing my photos and videos better are my main interests. I assume Final Cut Server does this kind of thing (will keep reading up on prior product). (edit: Though Final Cut Server does it in a very specific context/field! Not for regular Mac & iLife users)

Explain how tools aimed at TV and Movie Production isn't going to lead to content for Apple's devices? Then what the devil are these for?

Additionally, think why apple should continue a product that only contributes to 1-2% of total sales. There is almost no profit. These tools are to get street cred from the Video industry.

Considering that there obviously already ARE tools to do that very thing (otherwise there would BE no content on these devices!), it's you who must explain how this would lead to content that is already there, and is expanding all the time.

The reason why there isn't even more video content at this time is not technical, but contractual. How will this change that?

With Final Cuts support for 4K, I think FCS2 will be a pretty big impact.

I've only seen that FCP supports RED codec. I haven't see where it explicitly says FCP supports 4K. It doesn't say that anywhere in the support documentation. If it really did there would a lot be more talk about it.

At this point there isn't any easy or cheap way to even view 4K. Sony's projector is the only way.

Considering that there obviously already ARE tools to do that very thing (otherwise there would BE no content on these devices!), it's you who must explain how this would lead to content that is already there, and is expanding all the time.

The reason why there isn't even more video content at this time is not technical, but contractual. How will this change that?

Ok scenario 1:
Content Maker: I want to add my new movie to iTS.
Apple: What is your source material in?
CM: I use Avids station.
Apple: My those are nice, but you have to buy this tool. But we don't support that software, you have to talk to them.
CM: Oh, I am a poor independent label. Bye.

Scenario 2:
CM: I want to add my new movie to iTS.
Apple: What is your source material in?
CM: I just bought a, cheaper than Avid, MacPro with FCP.
Apple: Great, you are done. We support direct transfers of FCP projects or our new native 4K.

It is the apple ease of access through ease of use that will expand the number of people considering using iTS.

Ok scenario 1:
Content Maker: I want to add my new movie to iTS.
Apple: What is your source material in?
CM: I use Avids station.
Apple: My those are nice, but you have to buy this tool. But we don't support that software, you have to talk to them.
CM: Oh, I am a poor independent label. Bye.

Scenario 2:
CM: I want to add my new movie to iTS.
Apple: What is your source material in?
CM: I just bought a, cheaper than Avid, MacPro with FCP.
Apple: Great, you are done. We support direct transfers of FCP projects or our new native 4K.

It is the apple ease of access through ease of use that will expand the number of people considering using iTS.

Done. QED.

Sorry, doesn't wash. You really think apple's going to basically push away people because they use some other software. That's a way to really endure your iTMS to video professionals. Tell them you only support your format.

And who cares about the source material. Its the finished product's format that matters.

And who cares about the source material. Its the finished product's format that matters.

You proved my point exactly. If your source material can't be put on iTS it is a done deal. If you choose a tool that can't get to iTS acceptable formats. FCP works with most formats plus makes it easier to integrate to iTS. Avid works with the same formats, and not iTS. I am not talking about the standard 720p. I am talking about the iTS DRM. Avid can't do this. FCP can.

You proved my point exactly. If your source material can't be put on iTS it is a done deal. If you choose a tool that can't get to iTS acceptable formats. FCP works with most formats plus makes it easier to integrate to iTS. Avid works with the same formats, and not iTS. I am not talking about the standard 720p. I am talking about the iTS DRM. Avid can't do this. FCP can.

ALL source material can be put up on iTunes. Why? Because all source material has a path to that end. Do you think that Avid only supports their own working files? Of course not. They have to support all of the relevant standards, and all of those have a clear path to iTunes.

Ok scenario 1:
Content Maker: I want to add my new movie to iTS.
Apple: What is your source material in?
CM: I use Avids station.
Apple: My those are nice, but you have to buy this tool. But we don't support that software, you have to talk to them.
CM: Oh, I am a poor independent label. Bye.

Scenario 2:
CM: I want to add my new movie to iTS.
Apple: What is your source material in?
CM: I just bought a, cheaper than Avid, MacPro with FCP.
Apple: Great, you are done. We support direct transfers of FCP projects or our new native 4K.

It is the apple ease of access through ease of use that will expand the number of people considering using iTS.

Done. QED.

This didn't come up on my mail app, so I'm getting to it after my previous post. But, my reply to that is the same here. But, I'll elaborate. You are setting up a red herring.

Despite all of the evidence to the contrary, with much material appearing on iTunes directly, or for all of Apple's machines indirectly, much of it having been worked on Avids, you insist on saying something that isn't correct.

I can guarantee that if any producer had a project that would be done on an Avid, and that project couldn't get to iTunes because of it, said producer would think very hard about moving that project to a different editing platform.

Perhaps you haven't heard, but there is now the four screen requirement for productions.